Source of wealth, source of funds

A licensed book will, at some point, send you homework. Two questions usually share the same PDF. Most people answer the wrong one.

This is not legal advice. It is what those two letters mean when a betting company sends them, what they look at, how long they keep it, and what the public cases actually say.

Source of funds means: this money, this week. Where did the £500 you just put into Sky Bet come from?

Source of wealth means: the pile behind the account. How did you get enough money that this betting pattern looks real? A job over years. A house sale. A will. A business.

Think of it like this. Funds is the last payment into your bank. Wealth is how the bank account got that big in the first place. If you send three months of food shopping when they wanted the sale of a flat, the file stays open and the withdrawal stays shut.

A normal Saturday

You deposit £200 from your current account. You back four horses. One wins. You try to take £1,100 out. The app says pending. An email asks for “source of funds documentation.”

That email is not always an accusation. Licensed books in Britain are told to ask when the account does not match the story they have on file. A £1,800-a-month salary and a £4,000 deposit in one afternoon is the kind of mismatch that starts it. So is cash paid over a bank counter, then sent to a book. So is money that arrived from another person. So is taking the same money straight back out without a bet — that looks like using the book as a pipe, which is a crime problem, not a punting problem.

Sky Bet’s own help page says the evidence must show the actual source of the money you bet with, and that it must match your betting. They list payslips, director pay, dividends, a pension, a bank statement that shows regular money in from a named place, a trust deed, or proof of an award. William Hill’s help page lists a P60, three months of wage slips, a tax return, or “any other documents that you use to fund your gambling.” Those lists are public. They are the homework.

Funds, worked

You earn £2,400 a month after tax. It lands on the 28th. You deposit £300 into Coral. A payslip plus a statement page that shows that salary line answers source of funds. The £300 is a slice of the wage.

You took £2,000 out of Betfair last night and put it into Paddy Power this morning. Source of funds is the Betfair withdrawal. A statement that shows “Betfair” in and “Paddy Power” out is the trail. That is still funds, not wealth. They may then ask how you built the Betfair balance. That second question is wealth.

You paid £1,000 cash over a bank counter on a Tuesday and deposited it on Wednesday. The Commission’s 2026 risk notes describe a student with no job whose statement showed cash in, then smaller payments out to other gambling sites. That is a source-of-funds problem. Cash is not illegal. Unexplained cash that hops across books is why the letter exists.

Wealth, worked

You deposit £25,000 after selling a house. A payslip for £2,400 will not explain it. The solicitor’s completion statement will. That is source of wealth: the pile arrived from a sale, not from last Friday’s wage.

You inherited £80,000. Probate or the solicitor letter is wealth. The first transfer into the betting account is funds. They often want both.

You have been a self-employed plasterer for twelve years. Three months of slips do not exist. Tax computations and a statement that shows customer payments in might. Wealth here is the trade. Funds is the last invoice that hit the account.

Two duties in one letter

Affordability asks: can you stand the loss? Source of funds asks: is this crime? Books put both in the same PDF because it is cheaper. They are not the same law.

A nurse on £30,000 a year who is allowed to lose tens of thousands is an affordability failure. The Commission has punished operators for that kind of file. A customer who stakes £276,000 with no paperwork on where the money came from is a source-of-funds failure. Both can appear in one fine. Only one of them is “are you laundering.”

Cases on the public record

William Hill, March 2023. The Commission made what it then called William Hill Group businesses pay £19.2 million. Those brands now sit in evoke plc. The AML part of the notice is specific. They did not ask for source of funds when one customer staked £19,000 in a single bet. They took no documents from a customer who staked £39,324 and lost £20,360 in 12 days. They took no source-of-funds evidence from a customer who staked £276,942 and lost £24,395 over two months. BBC News reported a new customer was able to bet £23,000 in 20 minutes. That package was not a punter winning a complaint. It was the regulator saying the book did not ask soon enough.

Betway, £11.6 million. The Commission said Betway failed affordability and source-of-wealth checks on VIP customers. One published example: a customer who deposited more than £8 million and lost more than £4 million over four years without proper source-of-funds checks. The fine was about the book’s file, not about a withdrawal sitting in pending for a week.

Entain, August 2022. Entain plc — Coral, Ladbrokes and the rest — paid £17 million after failures at LC International Limited (the company behind ladbrokes.com and sister sites) and the shops. Safer gambling and AML, again. The parent is the name on the stock exchange. The legal entity in the footer is the name that holds your account.

Those cases are why the letter exists. They are also why a letter the morning after you win can feel like a pause button. Both things can be true. Answer the AML question on its own page. Keep a payout fight on another. Do not put both in one angry paragraph.

Real check or a delay?

The fines are why licensed books ask. Hill did not ask soon enough and paid £19.2 million. Betway did not ask on an £8 million VIP and paid £11.6 million. After those notices, compliance teams send more letters, not fewer. That part is real.

Some books also use the same letter to sit on a withdrawal. The law does not give them a free month to hope you get bored. It gives them a reason to look at a file that does not match. You tell the two apart by what they ask, when they ask, and what they do once you have sent it.

Looks like a real check. They name the deposits. “The £2,000 on 12 March and the £800 on 18 March.” They name the document that would answer those lines — payslip plus the statement page with the salary. They give a deadline. They have a locked upload, not a chat that vanishes. They asked after a pattern changed — cash appeared, a third party paid in, the stake jumped — not only after you won. They already take deposits from the same card they are asking about, which is messy, but they are at least looking at money in, not only money out.

Looks like a stall. The letter arrives within hours of a winner and they have taken your wage for a year without a peep. They will not say which transaction. They want six months of everything, a selfie, the card CVV and a passport in a WhatsApp. They keep letting you deposit and block only the withdrawal. You send the exact pages they listed and they invent a new list. They go quiet past their own date. They call it “pending investigation” and will not put the term in writing.

You cannot always know on day one. A licensed book is allowed to pause a withdrawal while the file is empty. They are not allowed to treat a complete file as a drawer they never open. The test is what happens after you have answered the question they actually asked.

Write back, short. “Which dates. Which amounts. Which term. What document closes those lines. What date will you decide.” Send only the pages that answer those lines. Date the email. Keep the PDF. If the file is complete and they still sit, that is no longer source of funds. That is a payout dispute. Use their complaints address, ask for a final response, then IBAS if they are a GB book. Do not argue both fights in one paragraph. The AML answer is “here is the wage line.” The payout answer is “you have the wage line and you still have my £1,100.”

If the site is unlicensed, treat the letter as a stall until proven otherwise. Do not post a bank statement into a room with no furniture to “speed up” a win they may not pay.

Do they read the statement?

Yes, if they asked for it. A person in compliance, or software that flags names, cash lodgements, and the words “Betfair,” “Sky Bet,” “loan.” They are meant to check three things. Is the money in your name? Does the incoming line match what you said? Does it look like layering — cash in, split out, hop to the next book.

You can usually black out the Tesco shop and a medical payment. You must leave your name, the account number, the date, and the line that pays you or sold the house. A page that is all black marker is not a statement. A photo of a till receipt is not a statement. A screenshot that cuts off the name is not a statement.

How to send it

Use the upload in the account or a document portal with a lock on the URL. That is better than ordinary email. It is much better than WhatsApp to someone who says they are VIP chat.

Bank PDF from the app. Some firms let you connect open banking so they read named transactions instead of six months of everything. Payslips. An employer letter. A solicitor letter on a sale. A tax computation. Probate. Those last ones answer wealth when the statement only shows the last hop.

Do not send a passport original through a chat that resets overnight. Do not send a live selfie, the statement and the card CVV because a script said “verification.”

Is the data safe?

Safer than posting it on a forum. Not as safe as it never leaving the house. In Britain and the EU the usual legal reason for keeping it is anti-money-laundering law, not marketing. They are not supposed to use your statement to sell you a new casino brand.

The Irish Data Protection Commission looked at a bookmaker that refused to wipe a customer after an erasure request. Deposits and withdrawals had happened. The book said it had a legal duty to keep a record. The DPC agreed there was a lawful basis to retain, and told the book to be clearer about what it keeps. The keep is not a hobby. It is also not “we deleted it because you asked.”

The Commission’s AML guidance for casinos is plain on time. Identity checks and the papers that support them stay for five years after the account relationship ends. Then they should come off the system unless a court or another law says keep them. Betting companies sit under the same Money Laundering Regulations idea. Five years after you close is the British number. Other countries use four, five or seven. Write and ask what their period is. Save the reply next to the upload.

Staff can see it. Outside contractors can see it. Companies that promised they were careful still get breached. If the site is not licensed for your country, you have posted a bank statement into a room with no furniture.

Who has to ask

Great Britain. A UKGC licence plus the Money Laundering Regulations. Casinos live on heavy checks. Sportsbooks should ask when the account does not fit the salary, when cash appears, when money goes straight back out, when you are a politically exposed person, when the 2026 risk notes would call the pattern high. They do not have to write to every £10 acca.

Ireland. Same EU AML shape. A Coral or Paddy Power customer in Cork still gets the letter. The DPC case above is the keep-record point for that market. The footer company matters more than the shamrock on the ad.

Malta, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, France. MGA, Spelinspektionen, KSA, GGL, DGOJ, ANJ. All sit on the same global AML idea. Funds first. Wealth when the file looks large or odd. Sweden and the Netherlands are heavy. A licensed local account that spikes will get the letter. A grey site aimed at those countries often will not ask. That is not kindness.

Australia. AUSTRAC plus a state or territory wagering licence. Sportsbet, Ladbrokes (Entain), TAB will ask when their programme trips. ACMA going after an illegal site will not read your statement. It also will not get your money back from that site.

United States. Bank Secrecy Act and FinCEN on cash over the set limits, plus each state’s regulator. DraftKings or BetMGM in a licensed state will check who you are to the sky. Source-of-wealth letters are less of a Saturday habit than in Britain, until the numbers get large or the deposits look like they were split to dodge a threshold. An offshore or crypto shop that “doesn’t bother” is telling you the licence is a PDF.

Isle of Man and Gibraltar. Serious AML programmes. A big or odd account should expect the letter.

Curaçao and cheaper stamps. Historically the place that did not ask until a card firm made them. If they want six months of statements the morning after a win, read it next to the payout piece. The request can be real AML. It can also be a pause button.

If you say no

A licensed book can freeze deposits and withdrawals until the file is complete. That is the rule working. They can close the account and still keep the papers for five years. Saying no is a right. It is also how the account ends. A forged statement is a different kind of trouble.

If the letter lands the morning after a winner and the questions have nothing to do with that stake, still answer the AML bit in writing. Keep the “they will not pay” fight on its own page. Two doors. One PDF should not hold both keys.

When the book will not pay · How we can help